Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.. Read the opinion of the Court — 744 F.3d 815 →

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit·Decided April 11, 2014·No. 13-2000·Errata

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 13-2000

EVAN ARDENTE,

Plaintiff, Appellee,

v.

THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant, Appellant.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy." United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

The opinion of this Court issued on March 12, 2014, is amended as follows:

On page 5, at the end of the first paragraph (which carries over from page 4), insert a footnote that says:

"The opinion responds to the case as presented by the arguments to us. It should not be read as holding that no reading of the latent defect exception other than the one applied here is possible in the context of this policy."

Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co., (1st Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co. (Ardente v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.